Not Confidence Inspiring
For a while now, there's been a bit of a storm in the more feverish bits of the right wing blogosphere over possible fakery in photographs of the Israeli attack on Qana. For the most part, I've not bought the allegation that these images were "staged." The evidence is mostly circumstantial, and while I'll freely admit that staging such a thing isn't beyond what I'd believe of Hezbollah, I also think those making such an allegation have a higher burden of proof. After all, allowing such staging would require at least the gross negligence, if not the connivance, of quite a few major media outlets.
The trouble is today Reuters admitted to publishing a doctored photo of another bombing. And much like the Rathergate memos, the photo is not even a third-rate forgery. Anyone who's ever used the "clone" tool in Photoshop can see that the image has been badly faked. (Further, as someone who once watched an entire Scientology banner be photoshopped out of a publicity photo for a company we represented, I can tell you that a reasonably competent college graduate with little training could do a better job.) There is literally no excuse for letting a picture like this go out. It's laughable.
Therein lies my difficulty. I still don't think the Qana photographs are faked, and that most of the tempest over them in the right wing blogs is misplaced. But if the photographer who filed the Reuters photo is also willing to hack out a lousy Photoshop, who says he's not willing to look aside while some (relatively more competent) Hezbollah fakers set up on stage left? If the reason we should trust those photographs is the integrity of Reuter's editorial process, where was it when these latest photographs showed up? I'm willing to put the burden of proof on the bloggers, but for pity's sake, it would help if the media majors would make some attempt at retaining their credibility.